Improving compliance with Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) reporting standards: A serial comparison of 523 labs over seven years
The aim of this study was to evaluate reporting compliance of laboratories applying for serial accreditation by the Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) and compare compliance based on laboratory characteristics.
All laboratories applying for IAC accreditation for the first time in 2008 and then twice more (2011-2014) were evaluated for compliance with 18 reporting elements. The elements were ranked into three severity groups (high/moderate/low).
Reports from 523 laboratories were evaluated. The percentage of laboratories with reporting issues by cycle was 66.2% for cycle 1, 36.7% for cycle 2, and 43.8% for cycle 3 (p < .001). For most of the 18 elements, there was a significant decrease in the percentage of labs with issues. Less moderate and high severity errors were seen over time. Also, the mean non-compliant elements per laboratory decreased from 5.78 ± 2.72 at cycle 1, down to 1.25 ± 1.77 at cycle 3.
In facilities applying for 3 consecutive IAC accreditation cycles, reporting compliance with IAC Standards improved between cycles 1-2 and 1-3. No significant improvement occurred between cycles 2-3. Although the quality of reports improved overall, problems remain in quantifying myocardial perfusion defects, documenting report approval date, and integrating stress and imaging reports.
KeywordsNuclear cardiology reporting compliance accreditation Intersocietal Accreditation Commission
American Society of Nuclear Cardiology
Certification Board of Nuclear Cardiology
Intersocietal Accreditation Commission
Myocardial perfusion imaging
Study concept and design: Tilkemeier and Farrell. Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors. Drafting of the manuscript: All authors. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors. Statistical analysis: Ewing. Obtained funding: Not applicable. Administrative, technical, or material support: Farrell. Study supervision: Tilkemeier and Farrell.
Farrell is an employee of the Intersocietal Accreditation Commission. Maddux, Ewing, and Tilkemeier have no conflicts of interest. No financial support was received for this research.
- 3.The IAC Standards and Guidelines for Nuclear/PET Accreditation. Ellicott City, MD: Intersocietal Accreditation Commission; 2012:47.Google Scholar
- 6.U.S. Census Bureau, Economic Census: Regions and Divisions. http://www.census.gov/econ/census/help/geography/regions_and_divisions.html. Accessed 14 Aug 2014.
- 7.Intersocietal Accreditation Commission Policies and Procedures 2015. http://www.intersocietal.org/iac/legal/policies.htm Accessed 21 June 2016.
- 8.Franc B, Cohen J. Diagnostic error in medicine: A critical role for diagnostic imaging in finding and facilitating solutions. Appl Radiol. 2014;43:3-4.Google Scholar
- 9.H.R. 6331 - 110th Congress: Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008” Rangel C, trans. 110th ed2008.Google Scholar
- 12.Lafortune M, Breton G, Baudouin JL. The radiological report: What is useful for the referring physician? Can Assoc Radiol J. 1988;39:140-3.Google Scholar
- 17.Graber ML. The incidence of diagnostic error in medicine. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013;22 Suppl 2:ii21-ii27.Google Scholar
- 21.ACC’s 2012 Practice census shows continued changes in practice landscape. American College of Cardiology website. http://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/articles/2012/07/24/11/55/acc-practice-census-2012. Accessed 7 April 2017.